Readers' comments

I just watched the Umar series produced by MBC, it is amazing how much authority many women had in early Islam. The prophets first wife was 25 years older than him, divorced and also his Boss. At the time of Umar's rule, he appointed a women inspector to ensure the Market in Medina was not being abused by merchants. So why an earth is it that modern day Muslims countries are doing the opposite of the early founders of this religion? It seems that those who are ruling these countries have a rule for them selves and another for those they rule over. If a woman's husband is to recieve a text of her whereabout the same right should be given to her, so she she knows where he is too.

Have you checked the stats regarding crime against Women in USA? You are dissatisfied by this SMS service but conveniently forget how WEST has reduced the status of women on name of freedom to nothing more than SEX OBJECTS!

I thought the article was well written and highlighted a curious quirck happening in Saudi Arabia. It should be noted that Saudi Arabia is actually on the progressive side in comparison with other islamic nations. They are struggling to balance their new founded progressive movements (i.e. women's abilities to travel more freely) with their deeply rooted religious traditions. Islamic law in Muslim nations has many different shades of 'grey'. So if you're posting here for an easy potshot and to be outrageous, there are much more worthy and related subjects. Like what happened between young Pakistani teenager and the Taliban.

This article and the subsequent posts reminded me of the Saudi Arabia episode of No Reservations(a show about an American chef and writer who travels to different locations, and makes an effort to highlight off the beaten path and telling aspects of different cultures). His primary 'fixer' and inviter for this episode was middle-age Saudi-American mother and successful business women. She had emigrated to America, lives in Minnesota but her parents and relatives live in Saudi Arabia. Her view was that Saudi women don't all view themselves as subserviant, but definetly not equal either. Also, for a lot of families they maintain the tradition of keeping strict watch over their mothers, wives and daughters not out of mistrust for them; but as a manner of protecting them. Whether or not you agree with this view is your own opinion, but I thought they were sincere when they espoused it.

If you take Saudi Arabia as an isolated example on this subject matter, which you really should if you want to be intelegable on the subject, then you should realize a striking additude difference between the rulers and clerics vs the rest of Saudi Arabia. You'll catch the conservative minded rulers and clerics showing poor character in their rhetoric, when say stuff like 'women being the lessor trustworthy of the sexes'. However as I was attempting to infer above, most of the Saudi population doesn't agree with sentiments like that. If you look at a general trend in policies, specifically regarding women's rights, I think the country is moving foward. Though your bound to get a curve-ball every now and then, as this article illustrates.

I don't understand what the big fuss is about the text messages. Wouldn't you want to keep track of your property as it wonders around? It makes perfect sense.

The discussion shouldn't be about the tracking method, it should be about human beings being property. According to my morality - this is a horrible travesty, but being that it is actually happening - not everyone share this view.

It is the fashion nowadays to bash a certain people and their religion. But when you think about it, all the major religions subordinate women. The article's vision is narrow because it gives the example of one very small nation and uses that to denigrate more than a billion people. But this has become so fashionable that no one really questions that premise anymore. Can an article ever be approved for publication that takes the primitive actions of blacks in a tiny country to draw conclusions about blacks everywhere? I doubt it. It seems that religious tolerance has a lot of catching up to do with racial tolerance. This does not apply to all religions, of course. Some religions don't have any catching up to do at all. Some, in fact, are leading the way!

And it is not only a small nation that is used here to make inferences. The final paragraph of the article uses a single male participant in a single debate to make a point about the entire population of a single religion.

But what applies to a single religion may, in fact, apply to all religions. A study of the major religions leads to the conclusion that all the major religions discriminate against women. All the major religions subordinate women to men. In religion, a man is superior to a woman. A man dominates a woman. We have to remember that the three main religions precede the women's movement. And none have been updated to take into account all that today's woman takes for granted.

But what a religion dictates is often markedly different from what actually takes place between a man and a woman. So while a woman's religion may attempt to significantly reduce her value and place, she will not allow it. She will not allow man or religion to disrespect her. She will not accept humiliation from her man or her religion. And in the home, her husband knows very well who the real boss is. He knows it and she knows it. Her religion will certainly place her below her man, but even the most religious of women will not accept that dictate.

In the religion that I most revere, the Orthodox woman possesses beauty, purity, and power.

'We have to remember that the three main religions precede the women's movement'
What rubbish is this. There are NO three main religions. The Abrahamic/monotheistic religions of the middle east are regional. Beyond that small space the world is full of ancient beautiful mythic belief systems: Hindusim, Buddhism, Shintoism, Celtic Paganism, and the Anamistic beliefs of central and south america.
Also, the worship of woman (as seen in mother earth figurines dating back tens of thousands of years), preceeds by an order of magnitude the dominance of man as icons of power and order in most religions. And before these fertility figurines there were the proto-human animistic beliefs in bears, wolves and snakes, etc.
So please, before you start trying to invent the wheel based around a comparitively new religion, google Jospeh Campbell and see where that leads you. It just might give you a new perspective on things....
then again, probably not. There ain't none so blind as those that don't wanna see!
E

The laws of Saudi Arabia apply to all residents of all religions. A Christian man would equally well be notified when his wife crossed the border.

Of course, Saudi Arabia is a Moslem country, but this is irrelevant to the logic of the article. The example of the oppressive professor could be considered as a reflection of the culture, and hierarchy within that culture. Religion is incidental, here.

The laws of Saudi Arabia apply to all residents of all religions. A Christian man would equally well be notified when his wife crossed the border.

Of course, Saudi Arabia is a Moslem country, but this is irrelevant to the logic of the article. The example of the oppressive professor could be considered as a reflection of the culture, and hierarchy within that culture. Religion is incidental, here.

"It is the fashion nowadays to bash a certain people and their religion"
No, it is not fashion, it is called freedom of and from religion. Nothing is being bashed, just criticised. Without criticism there would be no freedom. It is not people being criticised it is religion, specifically Islam in this case. It appears you believe religion should not be subject to criticism. Why?
"The article's vision is narrow"
This is an article about law in Saudi Arabia (which, of course, is Sharia). An article about soccer does not by definition have to include reference to every other sport.
I have taken apart the logical fallacies and misdirected criticism of the first 2 lines of your comment, I have neither the time nor inclination to do this to the rest of your comment - any sane and rational person can do this themselves.
I will make this point though: you argue that it is justifiable for women to be subordinated because: "this is what all religions do" and "...anyway, women don't put up with subordination in the home" The hypocrisy of what you write is flagrant!! You claim to know the mind and wishes of women. By using one mythical woman as an example to illustrate this, you are guilty of the same "crime" you crticise so openly in your first 2 paragraphs!
You sir, are a disgrace to the human race, a shining example of ignorance, bigotry and misogyny in a world crying out for real tolerance, equality and freedom for all.
Al.
ps. Anyone who adds letters after their name (on an internet comment) in an obvious attempt to command extra respect deserves nothing but ridicule.
Peace

I'd say with those figure calling those three (Judaism could be arguable it seems) the 'major-religions' isn't exactly a gross mis-statement.

Its a funny article that does show how extremely goofy Islamist males can be. However, if you had a small phalace wouldn't you be concerned and paranoid about your wife. They're so paranoid over there, the law even allows them to have back-up wives. Go figure. Do you know how I know that Islam is going to become irrelevant? Because they chose women as their main enemy. Good luck... not really;)

Of course, when Muslims in West dress their women in hijabs and burqas it no longer remains medieval or retrograde. We are told by western leftists to unquestioningly accept Muslim gender apartheid as a wonderful 'cultural' practice.

The delinquent 'saudi' regime continues to give Islam a bad name.I wish the close-minded wahabi clerks (regime puppets and stooges) speak up loudly against the tribal,herditory, medieval,corrupt and absloute 'saudi' regime which is every thing but Islamic.

Where in the Quran or the Sunnah of the Prophet does it say that rule in Islam is herditory or monarchical? Where does it say that one family of several thousand owns a country and treats the public treasury as its own personal checking account?

Mohammed Khan has probably never been to saudi Arabia as he thinks rape does not happen there. Rape in Saudi is common but its' Flipinos, Egyptians, Indians, Sudanese, Pakistani of both sexes who get raped and keep quite lest they get whipped or mutilated after friday prayers.

But those who seem to think this is somehow due to Islam are equally wrong. The non-Muslim forefathers of these people behaved in exactly the same way plus of course female infanticide.

Islam tried to fight this misogyny and clearly in Saudi Arabia's case, failed.

The saddest thing about all this is that Saudis have been actively and succesfully exporting their culture masquerading as Islam to the rest of he Muslim world. That is why you see today Black African women from senegal to Somalia wearing Saudi burkahs and niqabs, something their mothers would not have heard of let alone wear one.

Pains me to see everytime especially knowing what Saudis including their clerics think of black women and black people in general.

Well, well! Saudis really do think of their wives and of females in general as objects! Not even wanting to pay for wear and tear. Nevertheless I do not hold any sympathy for Saudi women. How do they bring up their sons to become such egotistical males?

please have a look at the rape statistics in the so called CIVILIZED society U.S "1 of 6 U.S. women have experienced an attempted or completed rape." with "about 60% of all rapes or sexual assaults in the United States are never reported to the authorities."

Howz that for a stone age/ rather more appropriate word to use will be the MONKEY AGE ( according to your Darwin theory)

Yes we should. And then we should compare with comparable ones from the GCC. You see, we should have the same definition for rape in both sides before comparing.
Rape is a reality in this part of the world, but of course as long as it happens to someone dark nobody will care.
In fact it is nto even considered rape.

Sisamon is right - an agreed definition of a rape is needed first. In any allegation of rape, the absence of consent to sexual intercourse on the part of the victim is critical (NB: the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent). Where an adult human being is not considered being equal in expressing and acting on her will and is treated as a kind of property there such a concept of rape would be considered flawed of course (in the way you do not seek for consent from a car if it agrees to be used by a driver) - when talking about marital rape. Extra marital intercourse would be easily called adultery and those involved would be punished... However, pointing at other's flaws would not mitigate your own flaws. The flaws would not disappear either. It is a kind of self delusion.

You would do well to see the incident of rape perpetrated by Muslims in Scandinavia. It is a major problem and immigrants, who are a small percentage of the population are responsible for over half of all incidents. You only have to look at Muslim countries to see how this is handled. Two Philipino members of our company were raped in Abu Dhabi, they could not even consider of going to the police as being non-European and Christian they would get nowhere, indeed would have probably have been held responsible. I am afraid that you can not answer fact with an unpleasant theology.

Mohammad - please do not talk cryptically. Who is able to see and understand what? Do you mean seeing and understanding truth through your distorted world view? Please elaborate and let us have a discussion.

Stone age societies remain stone age societies even when temporary wealth from oil revenues permits the purchase of Western technologies and other toys. The Saudi version of Islam is about as close to the mindset of pre-verbal proto-humans as it is possible to imagine. Fortunately most of us don't live in such a world; we can only feel immense pity for those who do.